JUDGMENT : B.N. Sapru, J. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 604 of 1980 has been filed by Sri Tarkeshwar Nath Sharma who was the Principal of Dileshwari Inter College, Rudhauli, District Basti against the order of the Deputy Director of Education, VII Region, Gorakhpur dated 6-12-79 and of the District Inspector of Schools. Basti dated 14-6-79. In the writ petition the Committee of Management of the college has been arrayed as a Respondent while Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 10365 of 1979 has been filed by the Committee of Management Dileshwari Inter College, Rudhauli, District Basti and in this writ petition the Respondents are the Deputy Director of Education VII Region, Gorakhpur as also the District Inspector of Schools, Basti and Sri Tarkeshwar Nath Sharma. 2. Sri Tarkeshwar Nath Sharma was working as Principal of Dileshwari Inter College, Rudhauli, District Basti. The Committee of Management being dissatisfied with the work of Sri Tarkeshwar Nath Sharma framed certain charges against him and he was placed under suspension. The Committee of Management started disciplinary proceedings against Sri Tarkeshwar Nath Sharma. A charge-sheet was framed against him and thereafter a supplementary charge sheet was also framed. As a result of the enquiry the Committee of Management vide its resolution dated 30-4-79 decided to terminate the services of Sri Tarkeshwar Nath Sharma with immediate effect, i.e., from 30-4-79. It also resolved to send the resolution for approval of the District Inspector of Schools, Basti. 3. The decision of the Committee of Management to terminate his services was communicated to Sri Tarkeshwar Nath Sharma by the Manager Sri Baleshwari Prasad Singh by his letter dated 2-5-79. In the letter it was also mentioned that the resolution had been sent for approval to the District Inspector of Schools, Basti. 4. The District Inspector of Schools, Basti after notice to the parties considered the matter, and found that some charges were proved while others were not found to have been proved against Sri Tarkeshwar Nath Sharma. The District Inspector of Schools, Basti by his order dated 14-6-79 disapproved of the proposal of the Committee of Management to terminate the services of Sri Tarkeshwar Nath Sharma but instead imposed punishment of stoppage of one increment. Sri Tarkeshwar Nath Sharma was also directed to deposit certain amount belonging to the Institution, which was found lying with him. The District Inspector of Schools, Basti by his order dated 14-6-79 disapproved of the proposal of the Committee of Management to terminate the services of Sri Tarkeshwar Nath Sharma but instead imposed punishment of stoppage of one increment. Sri Tarkeshwar Nath Sharma was also directed to deposit certain amount belonging to the Institution, which was found lying with him. Both, Sri Tarkeshwar Nath Sharma and the Committer of Management were aggrieved by the order of the District Inspector of Schools, Basti and filed appeals before the Deputy Director of Education, VII Region, Gorakhpur. The appeals were filed under the provisions of Section 16-G(3)(c) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act. Notices of the appeals were given to both the parties and after hearing the parties the Deputy Director of Education by his order dated 6-12-79 enhanced the punishment imposed upon Sri Tarkeshwar Nath Sharma and while not approving the termination of Sri Tarkeshwar Nath Sharma's services passed an order reducing him in rank to the post of a lecturer in the college. Sri Tarkeshwar Nath Sharma is aggrieved by the order of the District Inspector of Schools, Basti and of the Deputy Director of Education, VII Region, Gorakhpur imposing punishments while the Committee of Management is aggrieved by the quantum of punishment imposed on Sri Tarkeshwar Nath Sharma. It wants that the resolution terminating the services of Sri Tarkeshwar Nath Sharma should be directed to be approved. 5. The first argument of Sri G.C. Dwivedi, appearing on behalf of Sri Tarkeshwar Nath Sharma, is that the order terminating the services of Sri Tarkeshwar Nath Sharma had been made by the Committee of Management without obtaining prior approval in writing of the District Inspector of Schools, Basti as required by Section 16-G(3) of the Act and consequently the entire proceeding was void Section 16-G(3)(a) provides that no Principal/Headmaster or teacher may be discharged or removed or dismissed from service or reduced in rank or subjected to any diminution in emolutions, or served with notice of termination of service except with the prior approval in writing of the Inspector. The decision of the Inspector shall be communicated within the period to be prescribed by regulations. Section 16-G(3)(b) provides that the Inspector may approve or disapprove or reduce or enhance the punishment or approve or disapprove of the notice for termination of service proposed by the management. 6. The decision of the Inspector shall be communicated within the period to be prescribed by regulations. Section 16-G(3)(b) provides that the Inspector may approve or disapprove or reduce or enhance the punishment or approve or disapprove of the notice for termination of service proposed by the management. 6. In view of these provisions it has to be examined as to whether the resolution No. 2 dated 30-4-79 did in fact terminate the services of Sri Tarkeshwar Nath Sharma without prior approval in writing of the District Inspector of Schools. The relevant parts of the resolution run as under: * * * * * (omitted--Ed.) 7. Sri G.C. Dwivedi, learned Counsel for Sri Tarkeshwar Nath Sharma, argued that the resolution dated 30-4-79 purported to terminate the services of Sri Tarkeshwar Nath Sharma with immediate effect. Sri R.S Mishra, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Committee of Management contended that the Committee of Management had only proposed that the services of Sri Tarkeshwar Nath Sharma should be terminated with effect from the date of the resolution and the resolution itself was under its own terms being sent to the District Inspector of Schools for his approval in writing, which was in fact done. There are detailed provisions for the termination of service of an employee of an Institution governed by the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. Regulation 35 provides that where there is complaint or adverse report of facts of the serious nature, the Committee of Management may constitute a small sub-committee to report. Regulation 36 provides for the procedure where it is proposed to punish an employee. Thereafter Regulation 37 provides that "soon after the report of the proceedings and recommendation the inquiring authority are received, the Committee of Management shall after notice to employee meet to consider the report of the proceedings and Recommendation made and take decision on the case. The employee shall be allowed, if he so desires, to appear before the Committee in person to state His case and answer any question that may be put to him by any member present at the meeting. The Committee shall then send a complete report together with all connected papers to the Inspector or Regional Inspectors, as the case may be, for approval of action proposed by it. 8. The Committee shall then send a complete report together with all connected papers to the Inspector or Regional Inspectors, as the case may be, for approval of action proposed by it. 8. The Committee of Management in fact sent a complete report together with all connected papers to the District Inspector of Schools and requested for approval of the proposed termination of the services of Sri Tarkeshwar Nath Sharma. In paragraph No. 13 of the counter affidavit of Ram Sanwarey Yadav, filed on behalf of the Committee of Management, it is stated that the services of Sri Tarkeshwar Nath Sharma were not terminated by an order of the Manager dated 2-5-79. It is further stated that Sri Tarkeshwar Nath Sharma was merely informed of the resolution of the Committee of Management by the Manager and he was further informed that the approval of the District Inspector of Schools was sought for the proposed termination of his services. In the supplementary counter affidavit it has been stated that Sri Tarkeshwar Nath Sharma was paid his suspension allowances even after the resolution dated 30-4-79 had been passed which would indicate that Sri Tarkeshwar Nath Sharma's services did not automatically stand terminated by passing of the resolution. From the entire procedure adopted by the Committee of Management it is clear that there was only a proposal to terminate the services of Sri Tarkeshwar Nath Sharma with effect from the date of the resolution subject to the approval in writing of the District Inspector of Schools, Basti, and the resolution did not automatically terminate the services of Sri Tarkeshwar Nath Sharma. The learned Counsel has, however, referred to and relied upon a Division Bench case of this Court in the case of Surendra Nath Misra v. Up Shiksha Nideshak Jhansi Mandal 1980 ACJ 396. The facts found in that case are that the Committee of Management by resolution dated 11-4-71 relieved the Petitioner from the service and also authorised the President to inform the Petitioner and other concerned authorities about the termination of Petitioner's services after obtaining the approval of the District Inspector of Schools. The District Inspector of Schools disapproved the resolution of the Committee of Management. The District Inspector of Schools disapproved the resolution of the Committee of Management. The Committee of Management filed an appeal before the Deputy Director of Education and be allowed the appeal and directed the District Inspector of Schools that the resolution of the Committee of Management be approved with the modification that the services of the Petitioner will be terminated with effect from 30-4-73 and he will be paid his salary up to that date. Aggrieved, the Petitioner who was an employee of the Institution, filed the writ petition. Paras 6 and 7 of the judgment run as follows: 6. As stated above, the resolution dated 11th of April, 1971, clearly mentions that as per the unanimous resolution of I he committee, the services of the Petitioner were being terminated and that the President was being authorised to inform the Petitioner and all other concerned, authorities about this fact after obtaining the approval on the face of it purported to terminate that services of the Petitioner with effect form the date on which the resolution was being passed, i.e., 11th April, 1971. It did not contemplate that the Committee of Managment was to take any further steps for terminating the services of the Petitioner after the District Inspector of Schools actually approved the resolution. It merely contemplated that after obtaining approval of the District Inspector of Schools, the fact that the services of the Petitioner stood terminated was to be communicated to him. Indeed this is precisely what was understood by the Deputy Director of Education, when he passed the impugned order dated 4th May, 1973 allowing the appeal of the Management. This is clear from the fact that the Deputy Director (Education) mentioned in his order that the resolution of the Managing Committee dated 11th of April, 1971, was being approved subject to the modification that the services of the Petitioner would be deemed to be terminated with effect from 30th of April, 1973. The order of the Deputy Director of Education obviously did not contemplate that the Managing Committee had to take any other steps for determining the employment of the Petitioner after (?) bad, in exercise of his appellate power, approved action proposed by the Managing Committee, 7. The order of the Deputy Director of Education obviously did not contemplate that the Managing Committee had to take any other steps for determining the employment of the Petitioner after (?) bad, in exercise of his appellate power, approved action proposed by the Managing Committee, 7. As held in the case of A.S.H.P. Association v. The Deputy Director of Education, Agra (supra) it was not open to the District Inspector of Schools to approve the action of the Managing Committee in terminating the services of an employee without obtaining his prior approval. In this view of the matter, it was not open either to the District Inspector of Schools or to the Deputy Director of Education to approve the resolution dated 11th of April, 1971, with or without any modification. 9 From these paragraphs it is clear that this Court held that the resolution dated 11-4-1971 automatically terminated the teacher's services with effect from 11-4-71 and the resolution did not contemplate that the Committee of Management was to take any further steps for terminating the services of the Petitioner after the District Inspector of Schools actually approves or disapproves the resolution. 10. In the instant case the resolution itself contemplated that the Manager would take steps to get the approval of the District Inspector of Schools which was in fact done. In the circumstances I find that the facts of the instant case are clearly distinguishable from the facts of the above mentioned case. This case was also an authority for the proposition that where there is immediate termination by the resolution of the Committee of Management without the prior approval of the District Inspector of Schools, it would not be open to the District Inspector of Schools to approve the action of the Managing Committee in terminating the services of an employee without obtaining his prior approval. In the instant case as the approval was sought to the proposed termination, this authority is of no assistance to Sri Tarkeshwar Nath Sharma. The argument is, therefore, rejected. 11. The next submission of Sri G.C. Dwivedi is that Sri Tarkeshwar Nath Sharma was appointed in the Institution as a Headmaster when it was a Junior High School and subsequently on the up gradation of the Institution, be became a Principal. The argument is, therefore, rejected. 11. The next submission of Sri G.C. Dwivedi is that Sri Tarkeshwar Nath Sharma was appointed in the Institution as a Headmaster when it was a Junior High School and subsequently on the up gradation of the Institution, be became a Principal. He submits that the Deputy Director of Education had no authority to reduce Sri Trakeshwar Nath Sharma in rank to a post which he has never held, namely, to the post of a lecturer. It is not disputed that Sri Tarkeshwar Nath Sharma was initially appointed as a Head Master and became a Principal on the upgradation of the college. Regulation 31 provides for punishment which require prior approval of the District Inspector of Schools and in Clause (c) thereof there is punishment in reduction of rank. These regulations apply to all employees. There is no provision in this Regulation laying down that a Principal cannot be reduced in rank to a lower post or only to a post which he had previously held. It is, therefore, clear that a Principal can be reduced in rank to the post of a lecturer. This argument of the learned Counsel for Sri Tarkeshwar Nath Sharma, therefore, cannot succeed. 12. The next submission of the learned Counsel for Sri Tarkeshwar Nath Sharma is that the Deputy Director of Education had no power to enhance the punishment imposed on Tarkeshwar Nath Sharma. As has been stated earlier, there were two appeals against the order of the District Inspector of Schools--one by Sri Tarkeshwar Nath Sharma and the other by the Committee of Management. It has been held by a Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No. 813 of 1968 Zahir Ahmad Budhanvi v. Deputy Director of Education, decided on April 17, 1974, that in an appeal by Committee of Management against the order of the District Inspector of Schools reducing the punishment proposed by the Committee of Management the appellate authority, namely, Deputy Director of Education has power to enhance the punishment. It was, however, held that an appeal by the employee against the punishment imposed upon him by the District Inspector of Schools, the Deputy Director of Education had no authority to enhance the punishment imposed on an employee by the District Inspector of Schools. This argument against the reduction in rank of Sri Tarkeshwar Nath Sharma also fails. 13. It was, however, held that an appeal by the employee against the punishment imposed upon him by the District Inspector of Schools, the Deputy Director of Education had no authority to enhance the punishment imposed on an employee by the District Inspector of Schools. This argument against the reduction in rank of Sri Tarkeshwar Nath Sharma also fails. 13. It was then contended by Sri G.C. Dwivedi, learned Counsel for Sri Tarkeshwar Nath Sharma, that the Deputy Director of Education while deciding the two appeals had not considered the appeal filed by Sri Tarkeshwar Nath Sharma at all and had only considered the appeal filed by the Committee of Management. The Deputy Director of Education in fact framed three issues while deciding the appeals. The issues framed by the Deputy Director of Education are as follows: * * * * * (omitted--Ed.) Issue No. 1 clearly relates to the plea of Sri Tarkeshwar Nath sharma that Regulations 35, 36 and 37 had not been complied with by the Committee of Management before passing its resolution for termination of the service of Sri Tarkeshwar Nath sharma. This plea was negatived by the Deputy Director of Education. Issue No. 2 also arises out of the plea raised by Sri Tarkeshwar Nath Sharma against the order of the District Inspector of Schools. Both these pleas have been considered in detail by the Deputy Director of Education. Issue No. 3 relates to the pleas raised by both, Sri Tarkeshwar Nath Sharma as also the Committee of Management. In the circumstances it is clear that the appeal of Sri Tarkeshwar Nath Sharma was duly considered by the Deputy Director of Education. 14. It is then stated that certain specific pleas in the memorandum of appeal filed by Sri Tarkeshwar Nath Sharma have not been considered by the Deputy Director of Education The Deputy Director of Education heard the case in the presence of the parties. It appears that certain matters were pressed on behalf of Sri Tarkeshwar Nath Sharma before the Deputy Director of Education and those matters have been considered by the Deputy Director of Education in his order. Some of the contentions which were raised in the memorandum of appeal filed by Sri Tarkeshwar Nath Sharma before the Deputy Director of Education do not appear to have been pressed before him. Some of the contentions which were raised in the memorandum of appeal filed by Sri Tarkeshwar Nath Sharma before the Deputy Director of Education do not appear to have been pressed before him. There is no averment in the writ petition that these grounds were specifically pressed before the Deputy Director of Education and he did not consider the same. In the circumstances it cannot be held that the order of Deputy Director of Education is bad because the appeal of Sri Tarkeshwar Nath Sharma was not considered. It is true that the Deputy Director of Education does not expressly say that the appeal of Sri Tarkeshwar Nath Sharma is rejected. However, it is manifest from the order of the Deputy Director of Education that the appeal of Sri Tarkeshwar Nath Sharma was rejected as the punishment imposed on him was being enhanced. 15. The last submission on behalf of Sri Tarkeshwar Nath Sharma is that the Deputy Director of Education, while disposing of the appeals, has taken certain factors into account which were not the subject matter of the charges framed against Sri Tarkeshwar Nath Sharma and which was also not the subject matter of the enquiry conducted against Sri Tarkeshwar Nath Sharma. An inspection of the institution had revealed certain irregularities committed by Sri Tarkeshwar Nath Sharma. These irregularities are undoubtedly referred in the order of the Deputy Director of Education. However, there is nothing to show that the reference to these irregularities in the order of the Deputy Director of Education bad any connection with the ultimate decision in the appeals. The order of the Deputy Director of Education cannot be held to be bad on this ground as urged by Sri Tarkeshwar Nath Sharma. 16. In the result I find no merit in the writ petition filed by Sri Tarkeshwar Nath aharma. 17. Coming to the writ petition No. 10365 of 1979 filed by the Committee Of Management, no error of law or jurisdiction has been pointed out on the basis of which this Court can Interfere with the order of the Deputy Director of Education in not accepting the resolution proposing the termination of Sri Tarkeshwar Nath Sharma's services, but instead directing reduction in rank of Sri Tarkeshwar Nath Sharma. The order of Deputy Director of Education cannot be interfered with by this Court on the ground that on facts and circumstances of this case, the services of Sri Tarkeshwar Nath Sharma should have been dispensed with. It is open to the Deputy Director of Education to consider what punishment should be imposed on Sri Tarkeshwar Nath Sharma, he considered it and found that reduction in rank would be an adequate punishment for his acts. This petition also has no merits. 18. In the result, both the writ petitions are dismissed, there will be no order as to costs.